Message-Id: <199511172306.SAA21072@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Fri, 17 Nov 1995 22:56:27 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: TECH: PROPOSED CHANGE 37: Relative Clauses before names
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

> CURRENT LANGUAGE
> Nothing can intervene between LA or DOI and a CMENE.
> PROPOSED CHANGE
> Allow relative clauses between LA or DOI and a CMENE.  Also allow relative
> clauses after "DOI CMENE" or "DOI relative-clauses CMENE".
> RATIONALE
> This will allow names with relative clauses that are part of the name,
> like "la poi banli .karl." (Karl the Great, i.e. Charlemagne) and the
> like.

Needless to say, I think this is a good idea.
At present, is {doi la karl. noi kea banli} ungrammatical? Or does
it mean "O Carl, who is great"?
Under the new proposals, on analogy with LA, {doi la karl noi kea
banli} should mean "O Carl, who is great", while {doi noi kea
banli .karl" should mean "O Carl the great", right?

A separate question: Why cannot {.karl.} be used as an independent sumti?
It is not morphologically ambiguous. How come there must be a preceding
LA or DOI?

Coo, mie voi me mi fa kea and